1: So, these…repetitions, these… reiterations? Are they therapeutic for you? Reexperiencing it again and again? Kind of postevent processing, like someone was suggesting?
2: And what’s the event?
1: The sentence. A gesture.
2: Sure. We could entertain this model for a moment. The temporal aspect of looking back on an event, which allows you to always switch between what it was, is and will be. That´s interesting.
1: And this processing, after the event, what does it result into? Do things resolve? Do they go on endlessly? Do they change?
2: Well, I hope it can just help to understand on an affective level what this sentence or a gesture means, could mean, did mean, will mean and the repercussions it might have on the one who is saying it and the one who hears it. And it is questioning of course and putting into the equasion that there is not only one way to say it or to hear it. Does this make any sense?
1: So you are developing a technique to find out more about affect? You are treating the narrative of the movie with different techniques of distancing in order to reorganise our perception of affect.
2: Hmhm…
1: No?
2: ...maybe the technique IS this “thing” that I am finding out. Maybe it is all the same.
1: O-k…
2: I just feel like packaging it neatly into “my research”, “my technique”, “my findings” might not consider that it could all be one.
1: What do you mean?
2: Well, I mean through these repetitions for example, and also through the other techniques they are using, the fragmentation, the doubling, the lipsinquing, “we start to see things we don’t actually see. We feel something happening, which is not happening, but is still part of our experience.”
1: Nice.
2: Massumi.
1: Aha.
2: Well...It is that what you see is not what it is.
1: Hm. What you see is not what it is.